Note: This is an unreported decision and may not be cited as legal authority. Please consult with counsel before relying on this case.
Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc.: High Court Clarifies Employee Test for Small Businesses
A recent U.S. Supreme Court case is important to small businesses. In Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., the Court clarified how to calculate the number of employees to determine whether an employer meets the threshold number of employees and therefore is subject to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House: Federal District Court in Louisiana Holds Timeshares are Dwellings Under FHA
In Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House, a U.S. District Court held that timeshare units constitute dwellings under the Fair Housing Act (the "FHA").
A 1996 Kansas case had a very favorable outcome for real estate practitioners, holding that they "may protect themselves from negligent misrepresentation actions by disclaiming knowledge of the property’s defects and having a seller acknowledge such disclaimer."
Olsen v. Vail Associates Real Estate, Inc.: Colorado Supreme Court Finds No Breach of fiduciary duties Duty in Dual Agency Case
Following the death of J. Perry Olsen, his ranch was listed for sale on an open listing. Vail Associates Real Estate, Inc., a real estate brokerage, introduced the Olsen children to Magnus Lindholm, who wanted to purchase the property. Lindholm wanted more property than just the Olsen ranch, and he asked Vail Associates to find out whether the only other ranch in the area, the Rickstrew ranch, was available for purchase.
Cushman & Wakefield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Alexander Summer Co: Brokerage Awarded Commission Relating to Property It Did Not Show
The Superior Court of New Jersey awarded a broker a commission in connection with the leasing of a property it did not actually show to the lessee. Cushman & Wakefield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Alexander Summer Co..
A decision from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Adloo v. H.T. Brown Real Estate, Inc., held that a lockbox agreement didn't protect a brokerage from liability for its own negligence.
The Adloos had entered into an exclusive listing agreement for the sale of their home with H.T. Brown Real Estate, Inc. (the Broker"). A clause in that agreement stated that neither the Broker, his agents or subagents "are responsible for vandalism, theft or damage of any nature whatsoever to the property."
P&M Equities, Inc., d/b/a Re/Max N.O. Properties v. Latter & Blum: Board Arbitration Award Upheld by Louisiana Court
A Louisiana court recently upheld an association arbitration award. Believing one of its subagents was the procuring cause of a sale, not the buyer broker who had received a commission, the listing broker requested arbitration and prevailed. The buyer broker then filed with the court a motion to vacate, modify and correct the arbitration award.
Tri-Professional Realty, Inc. v. Hillenburg: Licensee Has Duty to Buyer to Identify Correctly the Property For Sale
The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently decided a case concerning a real estate broker’s misrepresentation as to the parcel of property that was for sale. Betty Jones Wood, a sales associate affiliated with Tri-Professional Realty Inc., saw a For Sale sign on a subdivision lot. She called the telephone number on the sign, and reached Barbara Yeryar, who agreed to list her property with Tri-Professional, and Wood placed a Tri-Professional For Sale sign on the front lot.
Apex Realty v. Schick Realty: Court Upholds Arbitration Award Without Stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Because Such Findings/Conclusions Were Not Required by the Arbitration Agreement
The case Apex Realty, Inc. v. Schick Realty, Inc., heard Board and arbitrators appeal from interlocutory order of the New Jersey Superior Court (Law Division) requiring them to formulate written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding their resolution of an issue of contract construction in favor of Apex Realty. The appellate division reversed the decision of the law division and reinstated the Board's order.